Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on March 02, 2012, 08:32:51 pm
-
Seriously. My wallet screams every time I go to the pump.
-
Time to buy an electric car, lol.
-
curse you fartbongma0
-
this is why I'm glad I live in a place where everything I want to go is either accessible via public transportation or within two miles of a place that is accessible via public transportation.
-
I'm amused at how this wasn't a topic several years ago when gas was $4 a gallon back then.
Oh, right. Cobra/Mamba wasn't a forum member back then.
-
@OP: Then maybe you should go to the pump less often?
/me thinks the gas tax should be raised. :D
-
Complain all you want, but in the end, this is our goddamn fault. We had a chance, back in the 70s, to see where recklessly burning and relying on oil would get us, and instead of thinking long-term and developing better ways...we did the opposite and built land yacht SUVs so one overcompensating moron can ride around in them getting 10 MPG just so they can feel indestructible.
Sure, most of us don't have those, but we sure as heck should be making the people that went and bought them for no reason suffer (commercial needs are much different of course).
-
because the existence of SUVs is TOTALLY to blame for the cost of gas.
:doubt:
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
-
because the existence of SUVs is TOTALLY to blame for the cost of gas.
:doubt:
Cost expands to what the market will cover. SUVs have a great deal to do with what people are willing to pay for gas.
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
Yep. Its up to 1,80 euros per liter here in the Netherlands.
That is 6,8 euros per gallon.
That is 9 dollars per gallon.
So no, that is not ridickilous - you are better off then most of us. If it bothers you, buy a Volkswagen Lupo or a similar fuel effeciënt car - or learn to drive more effeciëntly! Keeping the revs between 1000 and 2000 helps a lot (and just as low as possible).
EDIT: Rounded down, whilst it was 8,998 - which should be 9 dollars instead of 8,99
-
Im so jealous
you americans must be dancing in the streets with your cheap petrol prices....
-
except in the uber metros like NYC and DC, it's pretty much necessary to drive to get to anything in the US. we generally don't have the option of decent public transport.
-
I take public transit therefore don't have to deal with 142 (Canadian) cents a litre
-
In Poland, gas prices are reaching 6 PLN per liter. That's 22.8 PLN per gallon. Today, that would be about 7.30$ per gallon. Now consider how much an average worker in Poland earns. And it doesn't help that more than half of it is the tax the government imposes on it.
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
I really never liked living in a city (Mainz). But now I'm glad I do so I can take open transit for free and leave my car in the garage...
-
In Poland, gas prices are reaching 6 PLN per liter. That's 22.8 PLN per gallon. Today, that would be about 7.30$ per gallon. Now consider how much an average worker in Poland earns. And it doesn't help that more than half of it is the tax the government imposes on it.
dafuq? polish gas prices are same as croatian. BLAME THE RUSSIANS!
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
But youguys live in ultracompact cities. So you can afford it.
I know this for a fact. I've talked to the German exchange students.
-
literally every person in europe lives in a hive city four miles across
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
But youguys live in ultracompact cities. So you can afford it.
I know this for a fact. I've talked to the German exchange students.
Most of us don't, actually. Only one of our Dutch cities actually has a metro, for one. There is nothing here that is as compact as, say, New York.
-
literally every person in europe lives in a hive city four miles across
Obviously you've never been to Finland.
-
I live in the UK and about 10-15 minutes drive from the centre of the nearest significant town, the bus is half an hour and about 3.80 for a return trip and about an hour 15 walking (i have done this), I am also about half an hour drive from the nearest city outskirts so driving places is just as necessaries in Europe as in the US
-
Of course, Poland does have cities. Getting around inside them is somewhat possible, though this is coming from a person living near a city with one of the best public transport systems in Europe (despite the mess Poland usually is, Krakow managed to keep this one working). It still takes about 30 minutes to actually reach the city by the only bus that stops where I live. And of course, it only brings you to the city outskirts, meaning you have to take another bus or a tram to actually get somewhere.
On the other hand, once you try to get from one city to another, you're left with:
a). Driving on a road full of holes, burning really expensive fuel.
b). Taking a rusty, slow, stinky, barely holding together train.
c). If you're lucky, taking a long distance bus and hoping it'll get there in time and won't fall apart when underway.
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
But youguys live in ultracompact cities. So you can afford it.
I know this for a fact. I've talked to the German exchange students.
Most of us don't, actually. Only one of our Dutch cities actually has a metro, for one. There is nothing here that is as compact as, say, New York.
Trams arent all that common either. I mean, ****, only two towns in Croatia have tram's for example.
Most of the other cities are pretty traversable with bicycles. And i quite literally mean it. While i lived in a smaller town for half a year, my bicycle was an essential transportation vehicle. Back in the bigger town now? It would take me 2 hours to get anywhere on a bicycle. Also, good luck avoiding getting hit by cars, pedestrians and general biker unfriendliness.
-
But youguys live in ultracompact cities. So you can afford it.
I know this for a fact. I've talked to the German exchange students.
Define ultracompact.
For the record: The fact that, in any german (and most european) cities, you can get everything you may need on a day-to-day basis from stores located within walking distance from your home is a major factor in us not needing as many or as big cars as you americans.
However, you should also be aware that the reason why America has such low petrol prices is due to heavy government subsidies. In other words, you guys have been living in a state-sponsored bubble for quite some time now. It's really remarkable that it's only starting to burst now.
-
except in the uber metros like NYC and DC, it's pretty much necessary to drive to get to anything in the US. we generally don't have the option of decent public transport.
Elaborate please. It sounds counterintuitive.
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
You should mention that most of the price is taxes.
And they should play the national Anthem at the gas stations and print the voucher for the fuel on black-red-gold paper, because buying fuel helps funding the state ;)
ARAL has a nice calculator for the taxes:
http://www.aral.de/aral/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9013265&contentId=7025891
A gallon is around 3,78 Liters, Super is normal gasoline with an octane value of 95, the E5-E10 means that 5 or 10% are ethanol, ultimate is a brand from ARAL with High End fuel that nobody really needs.
The first row in the red field is for the taxes.
As comparison, Mc Donalds price for a cheeseburger is 1 €uro and the monthly rent for a small flat with 2 rooms is around 250 - 350 €uro.
-
For the record: The fact that, in any german (and most european) cities, you can get everything you may need on a day-to-day basis from stores located within walking distance from your home is a major factor in us not needing as many or as big cars as you americans.
However, you should also be aware that the reason why America has such low petrol prices is due to heavy government subsidies. In other words, you guys have been living in a state-sponsored bubble for quite some time now. It's really remarkable that it's only starting to burst now.
what i find remarkable is the fact that subsidies have continued while oil companies post skyrocketing profits. to me, that amounts to my tax money being simply given to oil companies.
-
except in the uber metros like NYC and DC, it's pretty much necessary to drive to get to anything in the US. we generally don't have the option of decent public transport.
Elaborate please. It sounds counterintuitive.
urban sprawl. very few cities or towns are laid out in a way that is conducive to walking to your destination. "downtown" areas of corporate centers and entertainment, with the rest of the "city" (the residential areas) in a sprawled out suburbia. you want to go to the store, you drive. to get to work/school, you drive. to go out at night/weekend, you drive. what public transport there is is mostly designed around getting workers from the suburbs to downtown for work, and isn't good for a hell of a lot else. and most users have to drive or have someone drop them off at one of a few central points to use it.
when i was in the UK for a week, all the cities and towns i saw were designed that once you were there, you could pretty much walk around to wherever you needed to go. and public transport was a realistic option for getting from town to town.
-
But youguys live in ultracompact cities. So you can afford it.
I know this for a fact. I've talked to the German exchange students.
Define ultracompact.
For the record: The fact that, in any german (and most european) cities, you can get everything you may need on a day-to-day basis from stores located within walking distance from your home is a major factor in us not needing as many or as big cars as you americans.
However, you should also be aware that the reason why America has such low petrol prices is due to heavy government subsidies. In other words, you guys have been living in a state-sponsored bubble for quite some time now. It's really remarkable that it's only starting to burst now.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh Klaus said everything I needed to say.
-
One important part to note: european cities are not designed. They've grown organically.
-
However, you should also be aware that the reason why America has such low petrol prices is due to heavy government subsidies. In other words, you guys have been living in a state-sponsored bubble for quite some time now. It's really remarkable that it's only starting to burst now.
Just the other day I heard a guy complaining about the "tax" on gasoline in the local "gas" station. Cracked me up.
-
One important part to note: european cities are not designed. They've grown organically.
Ah, not at all. We in germany have some designed cities. Even Wiesbaden counts as a designed city because of its city rings :)
But overall, yes. Grown like a tumor.
-
Has anyone ever consider biking? I mean, sure, if you're in a hilly area it's not great... but if it's flat it's perfect
Cuts that hour and fifteen minute walk by at least half, most likely more
-
Has anyone ever consider biking? I mean, sure, if you're in a hilly area it's not great... but if it's flat it's perfect
Cuts that hour and fifteen minute walk by at least half, most likely more
Biking is cool and i do use it some times to get about but there are 3 steep long hills between my house and town and the UK isnt the most bike friendly country in the world, there are worse but you just dont expect a cyclist around here and many drivers dont care about cyclists except for the inconvenience, and having been run off the road a few times by articulating lorries I chose my journeys too only ones where there are cycle lanes or off road routes for the most of it.
-
Yep. Its up to 1,80 euros per liter here in the Netherlands.
Whoa whoa whoa
There's a country in the Euroet Union that has more expensive gas than we have here in Finland? Congratulations, how did you guys manage that? What sort of gas is that, 98E5?
And doesn't this lead to a huge race of drivers going to Germany, filling their thanks with slightly cheaper gas (~1.61 €/lite IIRC), further increasing the prices in the Netherlands?
I envy those Eastern Finns who live close to Russian border and have the permission to cross the border: gas at 1.05 €/liter and no "green" ethanol injected to it.
When I was a child, about 9 years old, I remember when fuel was about 5 Finnish marks per liter, equalling 0.80 €/liter nowadays. Back then people complained that it is expensive. But I recall as well that it was considerably cheaper in Central Europe. How did you manage to catch us up?
-
Seriously. My wallet screams every time I go to the pump.
...
I went to the mountains and burned half a tank of fuel (and a nontrivial amount of tread from the tires) today. At $4.00 per gallon for petrol (and it's actually running about $3.54/gallon here), that would run me $26.00, which is two hours' and ten minutes' wage at my current job. Seems a fair trade for a weekend outing. Without the trip to the mountains, I burn that much petrol over the course of two weeks doing normal commuting and errands.
My parents were in the UK recently and after accounting for exchange rate and unit conversions, petrol worked out to about $10.00 per gallon. At that rate, today's outing (or two weeks of normal commuting) would have run me $65.00, or five hours' and twenty-five minutes' wage. I might not so casually drop that on a trip to the mountains, but it's still a pretty affordable rate for commuting.
Comparing notes with some of my SUV-driving coworkers, petrol prices would have to get to about $20.00 per gallon, before I have to drop as much money down the tank as they do at $4.00 per gallon. That's the point where I'd start to feel the hurt too. Once you crack a day's wage on two weeks of transit costs, life can get pretty uncomfortable.
I've been having this conversation offline too, and I always feel like I'm stating the obvious: Americans, goaded by salespersons and marketing, think of the most extreme situation in which they can imagine themselves taking a vehicle, and they buy the vehicle for that situation. My own father almost bought a full-sized SUV himself because he thought it'd be great for a vacation to Colorado that he might take maybe four or five times in the life of the vehicle. Instead, he realized that the vehicle he was buying would be used 95% of the time (or more) by my mother for the grocery run and trips to neighboring towns within thirty miles, so he bought a reasonably-sized sedan. I could have bought a four-wheel-drive beast myself, reasoning that sometimes I leave the beaten path and trek up the gravel logging roads in the area, but I knew that 95% of the time (or more), my car would be getting used for highway commuting with no passengers and little cargo, so I bought a compact. Because my parents and I bought vehicles for the circumstances we encounter nearly all the time, instead of the most extreme circumstances we could picture, we can go to the pump with fuel prices at $4.00 per gallon, and it doesn't hurt. We'll be able to go to the pumps with prices at $10.00 per gallon, and it's not going to hurt.
Anyway, try these, in order:
A) Drive with a lighter foot. Don't apply more than one-third throttle during acceleration (except in emergency maneuvers, naturally) and don't surpass 55mph. That's the speed at which most consumer internal combustion engines are most fuel-efficient, and the difference in fuel economy between 55mph and 65mph is significant.
B) Forego the car, when possible. No, American cities and suburbs are not particularly pedestrian- or cyclist-friendly, but grab a map, and you're sure to find some back-roads that are light in traffic or equipped with sidewalks/wide shoulders. Hell, there might even be some greenways in your area that you haven't found, because you haven't looked.
C) Find a better job. I'm grossing less than $25,000 per year, planting me pretty firmly in the lower tax bracket, and I can still casually burn half a tank of fuel on a weekend excursion at current fuel prices. If you're having a hard time keeping up with transit expenses, you should probably be looking for better employment anyway.
D) Buy a more appropriate car for your needs. If your commute doesn't involve a large, unavoidable off-road stretch, then you shouldn't be driving an SUV. If you aren't hauling/towing large loads on a regular basis, then you don't need a pick-up truck. If you don't regularly have to exceed 120mph, then you don't need a sport/muscle car. If you buy a compact/mid-size hatchback or sedan, you will enjoy greater fuel economy, improved safety, and on account of the reduced weight of the vehicle (as compared to trucks/SUVs) better acceleration and handling characteristics.
E) Whine about transit costs on the internet, and remain completely impotent as fuel prices creep higher in the coming years and decades.
E) Lobby your local government to invest in better public transit and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Just don't go bat**** if it winds up requiring a tax increase, because it's your fuel cost that those tax dollars will be helping to keep down.
-
The problem is, sometimes a small car isn't really an option. I have a large family (6 people+a cattery) and live in a backwater. Until recently, we used a Ford Windstar for "grocery" trips (in fact, it involved a trip to a warehouse and nearly filling up the car with enough goods to supply a small store) and to ferry the whole family around. It was a very comfortable, good car with an enormous engine and large tires which was capable of handling Polish roads and even driving comfortably on them. And as far as the interior goes, it was a limousine by Polish standards. Unfortunately, gas prices rose and the good, old Windstar broke down, and spare parts aren't easy to come by.
Now we use smaller cars, which is somewhat uncomfortable. A Volvo we have is capable of taking the entire load we're packing into it after a trip to the warehouse, but barely (you should see things my father done to get everything loaded), and the handling goes to hell with such a heavy cargo. Oh, and unloading it is a chore due to everything being tightly packed and large packs stuffed into awkward places. And for family trips, we use two cars (including the Windstar, we currently have four, but all of them old and frequently breaking down), hoping they're in working order and won't break down while underway (which happens sometimes).
As for economic driving, the speed limit on most roads in Poland is 50 kph (about 30 mph) and it's usually not a good idea to drive faster due to poor quality of the roads. 80 kph (around 50mph) is what we use when possible, but that's rarely the case (usually on high speed roads).
-
Wow...I'm amazed to hear someone consider a Windstar a good vehicle. I hated the ones our family had back in the day. :p
My parents are currently leasing a Ford Explorer from a couple of years ago, which is our second in a row. Honestly, a smaller car than that would not work for us: I have two younger brothers in college several hours away, and they need that space to haul stuff back and forth. And really, you can't comfortably squeeze five or six adults into something much smaller. My dad was thinking about buying this particular car when the lease was up, but Ford switched the Explorer to more of a car chassis the model year or two after ours, so he might reconsider. We try to use my mom's Buick and my little putt-putt Escort as much as possible to save costs, but sometimes, you just need the big car.
-
for fun I just calculated that $4/gal == 0.67GBP/liters, or 0.8euro/liters. (I'm assuming you people over there use liters for measuring gas)
-
I have two younger brothers in college several hours away, and they need that space to haul stuff back and forth.
Clearly, you are correct. There is no solution to this problem besides owning an SUV. (http://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/EquipmentDetail.aspx?model=UV)
How often are they moving back and forth anyway? The only time at university that I ever had to carry more crap home than could fit in the boot of a compact sedan, was when I was moving in/out of the residence halls, and that was once per semester. Again, you're basing the decision to buy a four-wheel-drive, three-ton, V8-powered brick on a trip that will be made three or four times a year. What's it doing the rest of the time? If you're like most Ford Explorer owners and leasees, it's transporting one person and little to no cargo over well-maintained roads, while drinking two to three times the fuel that a smaller, equally-capable vehicle would use.
Furthermore, I invite you to pay attention to what I wrote:
D) Buy a more appropriate car for your needs. (Emphasis added.)
If you live on top of a mountain and can only reach civilization via a single-track dirt road that turns to mud six months out of the year, then by all means, drive an SUV (or a half-track for that matter). If you have nine children to ferry to daycare on a daily basis, first, figure out how condoms work, and then by all means, use that minivan. If your job requires that you haul 1,200 pounds of lumber from site to site, drive that otherwise obnoxious F-450. If 95% of your drive-time is spent going between your home and an office, with three or fewer passengers, and little to no cargo, why would you buy anything but a compact hatchback or sedan? If your answer is anything but "marketing" or "a sales pitch," then you are a damn liar. And if those are the conditions under which you drive, and you're complaining how much it costs to fill your SUV/pick-up/muscle car at $4.00 per gallon, then you're a damn idiot.
-
I have no pity for those that drive oversized vehicles and ***** about gas prices, but I do feel the North American pain that - unless you live in a city of 5+ million - you probably need a car. Especially if you have kids. It's fine for you Europeans to talk about living closer to where you work, not needing a car because you can walk or take transit, but the sad thing is that in the distance I drive to take my son to visit his grandparents - crossing only one provincial border - I could cross up to 5 European countries. Maybe more. (I love having this talk with my British in-laws who think a 3-hour 300 km drive is a long way and cannot be done twice in one day, particularly since I've driven close to 500 km one way out and then back again on work trips in an 8.5 hr day... but I digress). In Canada, if you live outside of Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal and you hold down a job, you almost certainly need a vehicle.
That said - if you think $4/gallon is bad, just wait until politics trumps science and some dumbass politician in the States or Europe gets hydrocarbons derived from oilsands labelled as somehow "worse" than other hydrocarbons. The US gets by far the majority of its oil from Canada, and a primary reason why prices are staying so low is the oilsands.
The sad thing is that here in Alberta, living literally 26 km from the nearest refinery, and the oil comes out of the ground less than 100 km from it, I'm still paying $109.9/L for gas.
-
Quasi-interesting tidbit: my dad gets 55 mpg with a 1992 Honda Civic VX hatchback. :D
-
literally every person in europe lives in a hive city four miles across
Obviously you've never been to Finland.
obviously you have trouble reading posts
solution to all energy problems is to install molten salt reactors on cars
-
molten salt reactors on cars
Yes, this. I approve of this. Let's also put gull-wing doors and flux capacitors on all cars. Kthx.
-
i'm good with my internal combustion SUV, thanks.
-
Prices suck for me.
I own a reasonably fuel-efficient coupe. I have to drive 60 miles (97 km) on average, 5 days per week (that's including getting to and from college and occasional shopping -- which I don't waste much gas on because I go shopping on the way back from college -- plus various things I go to for social/school life). My surface street speed is on average 40 MPH (64 kph) and my freeway speed is, on a clear day, 70 MPH (113 kph) on average. If I went any slower, I'd eventually be rear-ended on the freeway. Most cars are going 75 - 80 MPH when/where I have to drive.
This equates to $35 per week at the pump at the current gas rates, at about $45 per fill-up. These are Costco Gas rates, which are the best in California. $140 per month really hurts when I basically make $8,000 per year. I can't do much to decrease my fuel consumption; I have to get to college every weekday, my car is as small/fuel-efficient as I could have possibly afforded, I go to the gas station with the best rates, I don't take unnecessary trips, etc. I guess I'm just kinda shafted for living in San Diego, which lacks good public transportation, it has terrible sidewalk access in many suburbs, and it has one of the world's most pronounced cases of urban sprawl, basically forcing everyone to own a car.
-
Yep. Its up to 1,80 euros per liter here in the Netherlands.
Whoa whoa whoa
There's a country in the Euroet Union that has more expensive gas than we have here in Finland? Congratulations, how did you guys manage that? What sort of gas is that, 98E5?
And doesn't this lead to a huge race of drivers going to Germany, filling their thanks with slightly cheaper gas (~1.61 €/lite IIRC), further increasing the prices in the Netherlands?
I envy those Eastern Finns who live close to Russian border and have the permission to cross the border: gas at 1.05 €/liter and no "green" ethanol injected to it.
When I was a child, about 9 years old, I remember when fuel was about 5 Finnish marks per liter, equalling 0.80 €/liter nowadays. Back then people complained that it is expensive. But I recall as well that it was considerably cheaper in Central Europe. How did you manage to catch us up?
Taxes, in our case. It does lead to people going over the border to get cheaper fuel elsewhere, if they live close enough.
-
I have two younger brothers in college several hours away, and they need that space to haul stuff back and forth.
Clearly, you are correct. There is no solution to this problem besides owning an SUV. (http://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/EquipmentDetail.aspx?model=UV)
I am thoroughly enjoying the fact that you just linked to a trailer that requires a vehicle with a trailer hitch and towing capacity. Like, y'know, a truck or SUV. I'm fairly certain U-Haul doesn't let you tie those to subcompacts. For the record, we've rented one of those things a couple of times. Hell, when my brother and a few of his friends in the same neighborhood were moving into off-campus housing, we had to rent a full-fledged U-Haul truck to fit everything.
How often are they moving back and forth anyway? The only time at university that I ever had to carry more crap home than could fit in the boot of a compact sedan, was when I was moving in/out of the residence halls, and that was once per semester. Again, you're basing the decision to buy a four-wheel-drive, three-ton, V8-powered brick on a trip that will be made three or four times a year. What's it doing the rest of the time? If you're like most Ford Explorer owners and leasees, it's transporting one person and little to no cargo over well-maintained roads, while drinking two to three times the fuel that a smaller, equally-capable vehicle would use.
My parents wind up making the trip out and back several times a year, depending on what's going on. You're talking about taking two college kids, plus one or two of their friends most of the time, plus the luggage/food/whatever of said kids, plus one or two adults making the trip. That's not happening in a subcompact: it'd most likely require two small cars, which would wind up using more gas when all is said and done, not to mention toll fees. And yes, my dad does drive it to work and back most of the time, but he does so because it leaves the other car free for all of the daily errand-type stuff, which covers more mileage than his commute. Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, you're not going to be able to cram six adults into any sedan I know of.
If you live on top of a mountain and can only reach civilization via a single-track dirt road that turns to mud six months out of the year, then by all means, drive an SUV (or a half-track for that matter). If you have nine children to ferry to daycare on a daily basis, first, figure out how condoms work, and then by all means, use that minivan. If your job requires that you haul 1,200 pounds of lumber from site to site, drive that otherwise obnoxious F-450. If 95% of your drive-time is spent going between your home and an office, with three or fewer passengers, and little to no cargo, why would you buy anything but a compact hatchback or sedan? If your answer is anything but "marketing" or "a sales pitch," then you are a damn liar. And if those are the conditions under which you drive, and you're complaining how much it costs to fill your SUV/pick-up/muscle car at $4.00 per gallon, then you're a damn idiot.
I'm left wondering just what modern brands of SUVs actually have legitimate off-road capabilities, but that's beside the point. My parents leased the SUV because they legitimately needed the space it provides on a regular basis. To say that someone should buy a small car just because they're not using a bigger car to its full extent all the time is rather absurd. And they're not complaining about the gas price hikes any more than anyone else is. They knew going into the lease what sort of mileage the car would get, but because they needed what they had to offer, that's what they went with.
-
I'm left wondering just what modern brands of SUVs actually have legitimate off-road capabilities, but that's beside the point.
They don't. A friend of ours is a hunter, and his old Lada SUV has better off-road capabilities then the modern ones, who keep getting stuck in the fields.
My parents leased the SUV because they legitimately needed the space it provides on a regular basis. To say that someone should buy a small car just because they're not using a bigger car to its full extent all the time is rather absurd. And they're not complaining about the gas price hikes any more than anyone else is. They knew going into the lease what sort of mileage the car would get, but because they needed what they had to offer, that's what they went with.
Hmm. My dad (A veterinary surgeon) drives 'round in a Volkswagen Transporter (a van). He once wanted an Land Rover but didn't like them becuase of the lack of space compared to vehicles of a similar size, mainly leg space. Mabye a van is a better solution in this scenario?
-
Heh BF... It's about 2 days wages for me for my monthly commute. ;\
You can probably survive without the car in Bristol but honestly, bike isn't the best option, narrow windy roads, drivers that don't give a crap, few bike lanes, and definitely NOT flat terrain (there are 5 hills and 2 valleys between my place of employ and my home, and that's only a distance of about 8miles).
Public transport works out to be about the same as petrol+parking(tiny bit cheaper), 'tis ridiculous.
-
I actually do own a four wheel drive vehicle, but I'm not sure if it counts as a SUV. It is Subaru Outback with a 2.5 liter engine, I get about 33 miles per gallon or 7 l / 100 km. Pretty good in my opinion for a car of that size and continuous four wheel drive. And I routinely drive 400 km working trips, but for a single day, I find that 400 kilometers and a meeting lasting five hours tends to push the arrival time back at home too late and makes driving back home relatively dangerous due to possibility of falling asleep while driving.
I don't complain about the fuel prices yet, I don't need to drive that much, and there is another person sharing the costs of that car. Actually, for me it wouldn't matter what the fuel price is, I drive that little. But when I drive, I try to drive trips exceeding 50 kms. Come to think of it, the annual cost of the car insurance is about the same as the annual fuel costs.
-
I want your car insurance. :)
In Poland, most offers are a ripoff, as usual. Made worse be the fact the "civilian responsibility" (if you cause a crash, they pay the other guy for repairs) insurance is mandatory.
-
Quasi-interesting tidbit: my dad gets 55 mpg with a 1992 Honda Civic VX hatchback. :D
Plenty of 90's cars were awesome in this respect. The next would be the geo metro 4. I had an 94 mercury tracer that got 35 to the gallon.
Stuff i see not fixing anything.
1. I hate how there's so much encouragement and laws about buying new cars around certain states in the US. The newer cars aren't that great. I thought the scion iq was interesting for a car. But, 38 mpg highway when i can get greater that with certain older vehicles is stupid (not to mention the european version of the scion iq was much better on gas even after running the conversion from european gallons to american). This centers a lot around car exhaust propaganda. You can't however, cleanly burn something that can never be cleanly burned. Take care of your vehicle and you'll put out less emissions, even if you don't have a catylytic converter. The second part of this revolves around propaganda saying that older cars aren't as great on gas mileage as said all the time by owners. Propaganda is usually just propaganda though.
2. Ethanol is bull****. So gas companies start producing a lot of ethanol that lowers mpg to get you to stop by the pump more often which also results in more gas getting consumed by consumers.
3. I could give less of a **** about electric vehicles. When electric companies are still burning petroleum for electricity production (at least in alaska i know that is the main source for electricity, undoubtedly other places too), and then i plug my car in to the wall socket...i don't see that as a fix either.
4. Making cars lighter and dinkier isn't the only solution. I rather like my dodge dynasty in that it's a hulk of a mid sized sedan compared to my old paper weight mid sized sedan the mercury tracer. I get 32mpg highway, and it'll survive a wreck better.
Solution:
The real fix to the problem is to change fuel delivery to the engine. Gasoline vapors are what burns, not the liquid gas. Fuel injection is only good for one thing, the computer control behind it. Nothing else is good about it that i see. Squirting raw fuel into an engine is all it really does. Fuel injection has and hasn't helped.
Changing fuel delivery. I cite the shell opel 1. It got 376 mpg. The core of the technology was running the engine off of gas vapors. Granted the opel got that mileage going 30 mph. But, normal road and highway speeds, you'd still be getting above 100 mpg i bet.
Petroleum. People keep saying it's going to run out, and it appears to be anything but running out. We're still tapping more and more of it out of the ground each year, and big companies charge whatever the hell they want for it. There's no certain alotment for how many gallons we're allowed each day if say there was an actual shortage.
Change fuel delivery, or have molten salt reactors i say.
Stuff i could do was:
As far as i go with my chrysler 3 liter v6. I just put in iridium spark plugs to up fuel efficiency (and so i don't have to change the spark plugs for a really long time), new fuel filter, cleaned my k&n air filter (looks like new), new timing belt, and an oil change to some good but affordable synthetic oil. The enhanced fuel economy has been fantastic so far (i'm curious how much better than 32mpg highway i'll be getting).
I do like late 80's and 90's cars, that's where i think car technology was greatest. It's also a measure i use to see how much vehicles haven't changed aside from safety features. MOAR MOAR MOAR airbags and autocorrecting drive assist was really all that changed.
The gas prices in the last week up here in alaska have been horrible to say the least. A 30 cent jump over night. The next day was a 23 cent jump on top of that. Just the big businesses making as much money as possible
-
Petroleum. People keep saying it's going to run out, and it appears to be anything but running out. We're still tapping more and more of it out of the ground each year, and big companies charge whatever the hell they want for it. There's no certain alotment for how many gallons we're allowed each day if say there was an actual shortage.
We actually are running out. We're getting diminishing returns. That is, we extract fewer usable barrels of oil for every barrel burned in the whole drilling, extraction, refining process. There's oil out there, it's just that we already got all the easy to get oil and what's left is a real PITA to extract. Screw it all and build more nuke reactors. Also pour tons of money into fusion research. :nod:
-
My monthly gas bill for work travel is $35-40. :p
And that is at $3.70 a gallon.
-
Petroleum. People keep saying it's going to run out, and it appears to be anything but running out. We're still tapping more and more of it out of the ground each year, and big companies charge whatever the hell they want for it. There's no certain alotment for how many gallons we're allowed each day if say there was an actual shortage.
We actually are running out. We're getting diminishing returns. That is, we extract fewer usable barrels of oil for every barrel burned in the whole drilling, extraction, refining process. There's oil out there, it's just that we already got all the easy to get oil and what's left is a real PITA to extract. Screw it all and build more nuke reactors. Also pour tons of money into fusion research. :nod:
Double thumbs up.
We are pulling quite a bit of oil out of the ground right now but the world has changed from the 1960s. You now have very large populations joining our relatively small North American and European populations (which have also grown in the last 70 years) who also are driving around vehicles that consume oil and there are more and more of them each year. China is now the biggest automotive market and it is beginning to dwarf the North American one. So there is a fair bit of oil still flowing but more and more people want it too... the oil producers are optimistic each year but the thing is that nobody will truly have a handle on when we've past the peak oil amount until we're already heading downwards.
I'm fairly convinced that we won't have a stark moment where the oil tap suddenly runs dry... but we will have a steady climb to the point where oil and everything petroleum based is going to begin to be priced out of range. At which point I hope that we've either perfected another means or we've radically restructured our economies and our cities. Or there will be riots. If oil prices dramatically climbed to say $15 a gallon in the US... that country would effectively stop. So would several others. Everything is structured around personal transportation. People living in dense urban centers would also not be immune as lots of items are made from petroleum based products. We're getting better at making things from more renewable sources (thank goodness) but it's far better to start the research and the switch over slowly than to have a much harder stop. That'll hurt big time.
Also so far as vehicle safety goes. Thinking that you're safe because you have a big hunk of heavy metal around you is very old thinking. Crash cages, crumple zones, air bags, pre-charged breaks, and other technologies go a very long way towards protecting the occupants of the vehicle involved in the crash. Sure a giant boat of a car from the 1960s will survive the accident...but the occupants will be swiss cheese. I encourage everyone to go find the Fifth Gear vehicle safety video on YouTube or look up the GM crash testing where they take an old Malibu (1960s or 1970s era I can't remember) and crash it into a new Malibu. Despite the loss of a classic car in the test... I think the video is illuminating. Mass plays a role but where the energy from the mass goes is the important bit.
To steer my little side note back on topic... fuel economy standards are doing pretty well towards pushing companies to invest in alternative technologies and improve their efficiency. I'm talking about everything from plugin hybrids to twin turbo small displacement engines in mid-size sedans and crossovers. Far better fuel economy (under much more difficult testing standards) than we've had previously. I was recently reading about a inline 3 from Ford with a 1.0 litre displacement with power and torque that was better than the standard 1.6L that is currently available in cars like the Fiesta. No idea on the refinement of the engine (not sure how you balance a I3)... Mazda has some sort of new engine intake system that is like that on race cars. I wasn't sure on the details but the fuel economy and power sounded pretty good. Cool things are happening in the auto industry and it should at least make buying a new car an affordable thing when you go to fill it up.
We still need a good alternative to gas sometime.
-
Also so far as vehicle safety goes. Thinking that you're safe because you have a big hunk of heavy metal around you is very old thinking.
More or less what i'm getting at is i'll trust my car fairing better in protecting the occupants because it doesn't have paper thin sheet metal lining the outside of my it compared to my old one. In other words, handling impacts slightly better, and doing much better at not so wreckish kinds of things like roll overs. It wont handle anything else better than that compared to my old one.
-
Also so far as vehicle safety goes. Thinking that you're safe because you have a big hunk of heavy metal around you is very old thinking.
More or less what i'm getting at is i'll trust my car fairing better in protecting the occupants because it doesn't have paper thin sheet metal lining the outside of my it compared to my old one. In other words, handling impacts slightly better, and doing much better at not so wreckish kinds of things like roll overs. It wont handle anything else better than that compared to my old one.
When you put it that way it does sound like a bit of a step up, for sure :)
-
Averages about $1.50 AUD per litre here for fuel, and again, you pretty much need a car - public transport is pretty ordinary, and distances are huge.
That said, you Americans need to consider the big picture here. The reason your petrol is approaching the price paid by the rest of the civilized world is because the oil price has stabilised around $100 USD a barrel. This, along with improved extraction technology (mostly fracking) has made the oil shale reserves in Dakota and that area a viable resource all of a sudden. If the proce stays high enough to justify setting up the infrastructure, you'll get the energy independence that's so important in a lot of your politics without needing to drill the piss out of the Alaskan wilderness area.
Every cloud...
-
More drilling is more drilling is more drilling up here in alaska as far as i see it. Which should be a good thing as far as i'm concerned. There's so much land and hardly any people that more infrastructure probably won't **** it up anymore than the long ass pipeline up here (which pretty much didn't **** with anything). Animals just learned how to walk underneath it and act like it's not there. It's not a terribly complicated obstacle for the wild critters :)
-
4$ per gallon.
Seriously?
Around here in Euroland, (specifically, Germany) petrol goes for close to double that amount. I do not know what you are complaining about.
Same. The whining amuses me.
-
Has the ratio on this changed much since 2005? :
(http://www.urban.org/PublicationImages/1000845/1000845.jpg)
-
Animals just learned how to walk underneath it and act like it's not there. It's not a terribly complicated obstacle for the wild critters :)
*tosses bull**** flag*
There is an abundance of evidence from reputed biologists that show woodland caribou in particular do not cross roads and cutlines, but will follow them until the natural vegetation connects the areas again. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem here in Alberta and Alaska has the Rangifer tarandus granti subspecies which spends a chunk of its time in Alaska's boreal forests.
Not to mention, ground disturbance in the North takes decades to centuries for recovery, which is why more and more drilling operations are building their lease pads with compacted snow and ice over top of existing vegetation while the drilling or service rigs are on site, then trying to install infrastructure well above ground level to minimize local ground-level disturbance.
North of 60° is a very ecologically-sensitive area. Saying there isn't much impact just because there aren't a lot of people around is a pretty ignorant statement. The environmental impact of any northern development is potentially huge.
-
Has the ratio on this changed much since 2005? :
Probably. Gasoline prices are partially-dependent on the prices of the crude used to make them, and (in North America) a larger proportion of gasoline is derived from Canadian crude oils. There are a few different reference standards of crude oils, and their prices have converged more in the past few years.
-
Yup, it did change. I wish we could pay for the gas as much as we did in 2005. Prices rose, diplomatic situation changed, etc. For example, in 2005, nobody heard of Arab Spring.
-
*tosses bull**** flag*
There is an abundance of evidence from reputed biologists that show woodland caribou in particular do not cross roads and cutlines, but will follow them until the natural vegetation connects the areas again. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem here in Alberta and Alaska has the Rangifer tarandus granti subspecies which spends a chunk of its time in Alaska's boreal forests.
420 miles of the pipeline is above ground. The other what is just barely under half for the rest of the length is underground. Permafrost had to **** with the design of course for why the pipeline is funky. And depends on what you mean by natural vegetation.
-
If 95% of your drive-time is spent going between your home and an office, with three or fewer passengers, and little to no cargo, why would you buy anything but a compact hatchback or sedan?
I used to be a fan of smaller cars like you, but then I took a Mercedes 817L (http://www.truck1.eu/img/Truck_Tilt_Mercedes_Benz_817_L-ful-1528_7247967762677.jpg) in my rear end.
Luckily a few years earlier, when I was on vacation in the US I noticed that police Crown Vics have dual exhausts and rather wide tires, which were giveaways that those cars aren't archaic stereotypical US boats that can neither accelerate or handle.
After some reading I ended up buying one and importing it to Poland.
Poor truck had its front bumper broken in half when it hit me. :p
Accidents happen. You don't have to cause them, in my case it was waiting at a red light and getting hit by a truck that couldn't stop on an icy road.
No matter how idiot proof your driving is, there's always a better idiot, so having a few 100 kg more of life insurance is always a good idea.
Other than that people tend to drive a bit more politely when next to a large car. I never get people cutting me off, which is pretty common in Poland, and if there is anyone who absolutely needs to change to my lane, they either yield or signal for a couple seconds before getting in front of me.
This, along with the car being quiet enough to talk whispering at 80 km/h, roomy enough for me to stretch my hands fully before I touch the ceiling, the comfortable seats and the general ease of driving it means that when I get in the car tired, I arrive at the destination rested.
Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, you're not going to be able to cram six adults into any sedan I know of.
Mercury Grand Marquis.
Gas mileage in the high 20's (about 8-9 l/100 km for the metric people) when driving down a highway at a constant 70 MPH. It will lack the trunk space of a Suburban though, so it might not be good for long trips with 6 people.
I encourage everyone to go find the Fifth Gear vehicle safety video on YouTube or look up the GM crash testing where they take an old Malibu (1960s or 1970s era I can't remember) and crash it into a new Malibu. Despite the loss of a classic car in the test... I think the video is illuminating. Mass plays a role but where the energy from the mass goes is the important bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
That's Bel Air, and it was a 1959 which had an X frame, like this one:
(http://image.carcraft.com/f/24836426/ccrp_0910_01_z+junkyard_crawl+1958_chevy_x_frame.jpg)
The design was pretty flawed in terms of safety even when it was new. There were simply no crash tests back then, and people liked being seated a bit lower than having a frame rail near the seat would allow for.
Then came the '60s and '70s. People started caring about safety and cars got seat belts, padded interiors, bumpers that actually absorbed energy rather than just being a shiny ornament and early implementations of crumple zones.
The late '70s introduced airbags and a big car from this time would be safer than a small one built today.
This is what a modern full size car looks like when rammed by a semi, when parked behind another semi:
(http://graphics1.snopes.com/photos/accident/graphics/kelly4.jpg)
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/kelly.asp
I have some doubts a driver of a compact or even mid size, however modern and well equipped, would survive this, let alone be able to call for help himself.
As for getting oil from the US, IIRC the current president vetoed off shore drilling some time ago. This, along with a bunch of crazy norms that keep the US from building a bunch of new refineries is a significant reason why gas is getting so expensive.
-
Wait are you saying that in the process of drilling for and extracting new oil, we consume more oil than we get out of it?
-
No, but the net oil gained is way less nowadays than it used to be.
-
Not sure if anyone here knows of Idleworm's blog and his recently finished animated film about peak oil, but I thought it would be relevent to bring it up. It raises some points discussed here already, but I haven't watched it entirely.
http://www.idleworm.com/blog/2012/02/13/theres-no-tomorrow/ (http://www.idleworm.com/blog/2012/02/13/theres-no-tomorrow/)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA
Time to build that starship, while the resources are still available...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA
Time to build that starship, while the resources are still available...
O'Neill was right, you know.
-
I have two younger brothers in college several hours away, and they need that space to haul stuff back and forth.
Clearly, you are correct. There is no solution to this problem besides owning an SUV. (http://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/EquipmentDetail.aspx?model=UV)
How often are they moving back and forth anyway? The only time at university that I ever had to carry more crap home than could fit in the boot of a compact sedan, was when I was moving in/out of the residence halls, and that was once per semester. Again, you're basing the decision to buy a four-wheel-drive, three-ton, V8-powered brick on a trip that will be made three or four times a year. What's it doing the rest of the time? If you're like most Ford Explorer owners and leasees, it's transporting one person and little to no cargo over well-maintained roads, while drinking two to three times the fuel that a smaller, equally-capable vehicle would use.
Furthermore, I invite you to pay attention to what I wrote:
D) Buy a more appropriate car for your needs. (Emphasis added.)
If you live on top of a mountain and can only reach civilization via a single-track dirt road that turns to mud six months out of the year, then by all means, drive an SUV (or a half-track for that matter). If you have nine children to ferry to daycare on a daily basis, first, figure out how condoms work, and then by all means, use that minivan. If your job requires that you haul 1,200 pounds of lumber from site to site, drive that otherwise obnoxious F-450. If 95% of your drive-time is spent going between your home and an office, with three or fewer passengers, and little to no cargo, why would you buy anything but a compact hatchback or sedan? If your answer is anything but "marketing" or "a sales pitch," then you are a damn liar. And if those are the conditions under which you drive, and you're complaining how much it costs to fill your SUV/pick-up/muscle car at $4.00 per gallon, then you're a damn idiot.
Here is the reason people buy these monsters:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/08/how-to-take-a-tax-write-off-for-a-new-porsche-bmw-or-cadillac/
They're subsidized! Until 2004 you could do this even if the vehicle in question wasn't used exclusively for business.
-
I have two younger brothers in college several hours away, and they need that space to haul stuff back and forth.
Clearly, you are correct. There is no solution to this problem besides owning an SUV. (http://www.uhaul.com/Reservations/EquipmentDetail.aspx?model=UV)
How often are they moving back and forth anyway? The only time at university that I ever had to carry more crap home than could fit in the boot of a compact sedan, was when I was moving in/out of the residence halls, and that was once per semester. Again, you're basing the decision to buy a four-wheel-drive, three-ton, V8-powered brick on a trip that will be made three or four times a year. What's it doing the rest of the time? If you're like most Ford Explorer owners and leasees, it's transporting one person and little to no cargo over well-maintained roads, while drinking two to three times the fuel that a smaller, equally-capable vehicle would use.
Furthermore, I invite you to pay attention to what I wrote:
D) Buy a more appropriate car for your needs. (Emphasis added.)
If you live on top of a mountain and can only reach civilization via a single-track dirt road that turns to mud six months out of the year, then by all means, drive an SUV (or a half-track for that matter). If you have nine children to ferry to daycare on a daily basis, first, figure out how condoms work, and then by all means, use that minivan. If your job requires that you haul 1,200 pounds of lumber from site to site, drive that otherwise obnoxious F-450. If 95% of your drive-time is spent going between your home and an office, with three or fewer passengers, and little to no cargo, why would you buy anything but a compact hatchback or sedan? If your answer is anything but "marketing" or "a sales pitch," then you are a damn liar. And if those are the conditions under which you drive, and you're complaining how much it costs to fill your SUV/pick-up/muscle car at $4.00 per gallon, then you're a damn idiot.
Here is the reason people buy these monsters:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/04/08/how-to-take-a-tax-write-off-for-a-new-porsche-bmw-or-cadillac/
They're subsidized! Until 2004 you could do this even if the vehicle in question wasn't used exclusively for business.
Wow... sounds like a nutty tax law. Like nobody could have foreseen this? Crazy.
-
tax laws are horrible. more on this tonight at 9. stay tuned.
-
And now I want your tax laws. :)
-
*tosses bull**** flag*
There is an abundance of evidence from reputed biologists that show woodland caribou in particular do not cross roads and cutlines, but will follow them until the natural vegetation connects the areas again. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem here in Alberta and Alaska has the Rangifer tarandus granti subspecies which spends a chunk of its time in Alaska's boreal forests.
420 miles of the pipeline is above ground. The other what is just barely under half for the rest of the length is underground. Permafrost had to **** with the design of course for why the pipeline is funky. And depends on what you mean by natural vegetation.
It's not whether it's above or below-ground that matters; it's what it's done to the surrounding vegetation (if any). If any of the pipeline runs through boreal forest or even partially-forested areas, you can pretty much guarantee it's affecting wildlife dispersion and migration - specifically the aforementioned caribou.
Nevermind that pipeline's all eventually break and leak.
-
Nevermind that pipeline's all eventually break and leak.
:wtf:
no. all pipes have the POSSIBILITY to break, but that doesn't mean all of them WILL.
-
The only pros to living in South Carolina: Good university, mother****ing Charleston is awesome, and one of the lowest nonzero gas taxes in the world.
But yeah, **** gas prices with a rake, regardless of where you live. If someone has the know-how to shed some light on this: If the majority if the United States oil supply is piped in from Alaska (or rather, in our general vicinity), and not OPEC, why is all of the Iran bull**** I'm hearing about having such an impact on gas prices? Eight months ago, we dropped down into the mid to low $2.00 per gallon range, and only after this uranium enrichment thing started to become headline news, prices went up. What the hell kind of correlation is there if it's not even a big enough chunk to warrant that kind of price jump?
forgive my ignorant American self if I missed the entire point of the topic, I've just always wondered this
-
The only pros to living in South Carolina: Good university, mother****ing Charleston is awesome, and one of the lowest nonzero gas taxes in the world.
But yeah, **** gas prices with a rake, regardless of where you live. If someone has the know-how to shed some light on this: If the majority if the United States oil supply is piped in from Alaska (or rather, in our general vicinity), and not OPEC, why is all of the Iran bull**** I'm hearing about having such an impact on gas prices? Eight months ago, we dropped down into the mid to low $2.00 per gallon range, and only after this uranium enrichment thing started to become headline news, prices went up. What the hell kind of correlation is there if it's not even a big enough chunk to warrant that kind of price jump?
forgive my ignorant American self if I missed the entire point of the topic, I've just always wondered this
Because the economy, and in turn commodity prices, depend on perceptions and not actual reality. Those who sell oil know they can get away with using instability in the middle east as an excuse for higher prices, and if something will make them more money, they'll do it.
-
Nevermind that pipeline's all eventually break and leak.
:wtf:
no. all pipes have the POSSIBILITY to break, but that doesn't mean all of them WILL.
No, every pipeline will eventually break, unless it is removed from service before it has a chance to do so. That, unfortunately, does not usually happen. Also unfortunately, the public at large has no idea just how many pipeline breaks occur every month. I was shocked when I started learning about it in the course of my job. As the vast majority of breaks don't impact people or waterbodies, they are usually quietly handled by a resource regulator and don't even get on the radar of environmental authorities. Pipelines break and leak with alarming regularity, and not just due to age. The high-profile lines are watched much more closely, but they aren't the real problem when it comes to leaks. Some of the largest and most damaging produced water and oil spills occur at small operations in remote areas, frequently due to human error or maintenance failure, though sometimes it's just equipment age.
-
Nothing has a mean time to failure of infinity...
-
The only pros to living in South Carolina: Good university, mother****ing Charleston is awesome, and one of the lowest nonzero gas taxes in the world.
But yeah, **** gas prices with a rake, regardless of where you live. If someone has the know-how to shed some light on this: If the majority if the United States oil supply is piped in from Alaska (or rather, in our general vicinity), and not OPEC, why is all of the Iran bull**** I'm hearing about having such an impact on gas prices? Eight months ago, we dropped down into the mid to low $2.00 per gallon range, and only after this uranium enrichment thing started to become headline news, prices went up. What the hell kind of correlation is there if it's not even a big enough chunk to warrant that kind of price jump?
forgive my ignorant American self if I missed the entire point of the topic, I've just always wondered this
Because the economy, and in turn commodity prices, depend on perceptions and not actual reality. Those who sell oil know they can get away with using instability in the middle east as an excuse for higher prices, and if something will make them more money, they'll do it.
Some folks might call this speculation.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=7fb6728b-29a4-46a6-8a8f-a5655818caa6
-
i call it gouging. unfortunately the government doesn't unless it's an immediate spike of a huge percentage, like after katrina. same concept, just slower.
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
That video seems to imply that Presidents have some ability to change gas prices. They don't.
-
That video seems to imply that Presidents have some ability to change gas prices. They don't.
That video is the hipocrisy off the American media blaming the presidents (or not blaming the president, depending on party affiliation) on gas prices. Whether or not the gas prices actually can be influenced by the president is another matter.
-
This video seems relevant:
But actually isn't.
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
'Seems' is a very good choice of words
-
+1 Hidden, you're a knee-slapper!
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
-
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
A simple question for your educated and intelligent answer, then.
Rising gas prices are hurting Barack Obama's chances of reelection. Why has he not arrested the increase and rolled it back, hmm?
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
I would love it if the president could control gas prices, but it's actually one of the topics my lab is working on right now (presidential influence on the economy) and the evidence we're getting - as well as the general agreement in the field - is that the president has little control over the economy, gas prices included.
You probably won't read this post but uh here it is
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
I would love it if the president could control gas prices, but it's actually one of the topics my lab is working on right now (presidential influence on the economy) and the evidence we're getting - as well as the general agreement in the field - is that the president has little control over the economy, gas prices included.
You probably won't read this post but uh here it is
Control or influence?
-
Of course the president can control gas prices, just instate price controls for gasoline. Heil Stalin!
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
I would love it if the president could control gas prices, but it's actually one of the topics my lab is working on right now (presidential influence on the economy) and the evidence we're getting - as well as the general agreement in the field - is that the president has little control over the economy, gas prices included.
You probably won't read this post but uh here it is
agreed, but the overall political climate appears to influence the economy rather well. and i would say the president has a GREAT deal to do with the political climate.
the fact that all politicians THINK they can control the economy isn't helping.
-
This video seems relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU
:doubt: Anyone who doesn't get that probably never will, because they never will want to.
As an attempt to show bias in the media, using fuel prices as an example, it falls rather flat. The scenes chosen to depict the "media's" message in 2008 are largely interviews with and addresses by politicians who were opposed to the Republican President and were using rising fuel prices as ammunition to oppose him. The more recent scenes were plucked from local and morning news programs, which will paint a rosey picture of anything, since, in the name of ratings, they don't want to kick off anybody's day on a down note. You can just as easily cherry-pick scenes from the media in 2003 and 2011 to make the media appear as blood-thirsty warhawks, who want nothing more than to topple every government in the eastern hemisphere. By way of selective memory, you can make the media out to be anything that is politically conveninent for you.
-
https://www.google.com/search?&q=obama+tap+petroleum+reserve
EDIT: Although, I will say, Bush did tap the reserve too, IIRC. The difference is, Bush was all for increasing domestic oil production and refining capacity. Obama is all for decreasing it.
While switching to alternative fuel sources may seem like a good idea, we won't get there very fast without power... so use what we've got while investing in other potential fuels.
The sad part is, nuclear energy would be a great alternative fuel if people weren't nuke-o-phobes. If we'd put as much effort into perfecting nuclear tech as we have at (failing) to master wind / solar / other greeny alternatives, we'd probably either have fusion power or something equally impressive. But noooo, nuclear can go BOOM! The T.V. said so. :rolleyes: Newsflash, so can:
Propane/Natural Gas/Gasoline/Hydrogen/<insert fuel used to create energy through combustion here>
The difference is, nuclear is going to be harder to screw up than other sources of energy, because of the safety precautions. The problem is, the consequences should you manage the monumental task of getting it wrong are rather severe. Ask the Russians, then go and do not likewise.
-
I haven't seen much real analysis on it, but oil does produce a lot less greenhouse gas than coal. More oil couldn't be that bad if it crowds out coal consumption.
Additionally, most of the world is under Kyoto. So emissions are pretty much capped regardless of the source.
-
I haven't seen much real analysis on it, but oil does produce a lot less greenhouse gas than coal. More oil couldn't be that bad if it crowds out coal consumption.
Additionally, most of the world is under Kyoto. So emissions are pretty much capped regardless of the source.
Depends on the oil. "Oil" is a huge range of hydrocarbons, and some burn cleaner than others. It also requires varying degrees of refining depending on the source. Coal is generally not a clean-burning fuel, although pulverized coal burns a lot cleaner than solid coal, and different types of coal are cleaner than others. In basic terms, oil-derived fuels burn cleaner than coal-derived, but it isn't always the case.
As for Kyoto, three of the largest producers of carbon emission on the planet do not abide by its most stringent provisions, so the caps are essentially meaningless. Until the US, China, and India sign on to meaningful measures, Kyoto isn't worth the paper its written on.
-
I wouldn't say meaningless. They haven't had much effect yet, but if all Annex I countries besides the US implement, it'll still lower temperatures a few fractions of a degree. A lot of other countries, like China, have their own domestic targets even if they haven't ratified the treaty.
I don't think the oil produced by offshore drilling is particularly heavy, although the Keystone XL pipeline is. But a lot of other oil sources involve burning off natural gas which evens things out. Overall I don't think there are many oil sources worse than bituminous coal, even most tar sands.
-
I wouldn't say meaningless. They haven't had much effect yet, but if all Annex I countries besides the US implement, it'll still lower temperatures a few fractions of a degree. A lot of other countries, like China, have their own domestic targets even if they haven't ratified the treaty.
The problem is in the implementation. Until Kyoto meaningfully captures all major producers and provides for both penalties and incentives in compliance with the strategy, it isn't a worthwhile project. China and India, in particular, should not get a break because their industrialization came later than other nations. Either climate change is something everyone should address equally, or it isn't. It makes no sense for ratified nations to economically-handicap themselves (reducing the funding available for R&D) while other won't or don't have to and charge ahead. To throw some undoubtedly incorrect numbers out as an example: if the US produces 17% of global carbon emissions, what sense does it make for a country like Canada to scale back their emissions, drive up the price of oil (thus making EVERYTHING more expensive), and cause economic havoc over the 2% it produces? It defies logic. The economic offset of non-equivalent adjustment around the world makes it more difficult to produce viable alternative technologies.
I misread your previous bit about oil versus coal as a question rather than a statement; you are correct that few hydrocarbons burn "dirtier" than coal.
Aside: FYI, "tar sands" is a chemically-incorrect term. Bitumen and heavy hydrocarbons contained in the Athabascan bituminous sands are not actually tar. Oil sands is closer; bituminous sands is correct. Nitpicky, but "tar sands" is a politically-loaded term designed to convey a political message that isn't scientifically correct =)
-
Well there are a whole lot more sophisticated analyses out there than what I can type out. But suffice it to say that even if the US does absolutely nothing about emissions, Kyoto loses about half its effectiveness. So that's still averting a lot of future climate damage.
None of this stuff is about countries acting in their present interests since the effects of global warming will fall long after everyone alive now is dead. The point is to prevent Africa and parts of Asia from getting devastated starting around the end of the century with drought and desertification, which probably won't starve people but will set back their development a lot. Warming actually hurts the developing world, China, and India much more than it does the Annex I countries, so the Chinese and so forth are the main beneficiaries of all this. They just aren't acting in their long term interests so Europe is taking the hit for them.
Canada was undertaking emissions reductions until a few years ago and it remained one of the fastest growing developed countries. So we're talking about a slight slowdown here, not economic havoc as you put it. I agree that there are some rapid emissions cutting proposals out there that aren't that bright, but the Kyoto conditions are pretty moderate and gradual.
I'd also expect Kyoto to put more research into renewables if anything, since there's no incentive in researching these things unless you're trying to cut emissions.